Oreo, Cadbury, Milka, Toblerone and Ritz are part of Mondelēz International’s portfolio. If you are switching between those brands to avoid one parent company, you have changed the packet rather than the corporate group.
The useful question is not simply whether a brand once belonged to Kraft. It is which company controls the relevant business in your market now.
The main brands to recognise
Mondelēz’s current brand directory includes these selected names:
| Category | Brands in the directory |
|---|---|
| Biscuits and crackers | Oreo, Ritz, Chips Ahoy!, belVita, LU, TUC, Triscuit, Wheat Thins |
| Chocolate | Cadbury, Cadbury Dairy Milk, Milka, Toblerone, Côte d’Or, Daim, Marabou, Freia |
| Bars and snacks | CLIF, Grenade, Perfect Snacks, Tate’s Bake Shop |
| Other familiar names | Halls, Sour Patch Kids, Tang |
This table is a shopping reference, not a claim that every product bearing these names has identical ingredients, factories or regional commercial arrangements. The company’s directory also includes brands whose operating rights require a closer market-specific check.
Why the Kraft name causes confusion
Mondelēz’s corporate history traces the separation of the global snacks business from the North American grocery business in 2012. An old Kraft portfolio graphic is therefore a poor guide to today’s ownership.
For a shopper, the practical consequence is simple: verify a named brand instead of assuming that all products historically associated with Kraft still share a parent. A historical acquisition or company name can explain the past without resolving the current relationship.
The chewing-gum exception
Older ownership lists often include gum brands without specifying geography. Mondelēz’s December 2022 sale announcement covered its developed-market gum business in the United States, Canada and Europe. Its corporate history records completion of that sale to Perfetti Van Melle in 2023.
Do not turn that into either “Mondelēz owns every regional version” or “Mondelēz has no gum business anywhere.” The geographic scope is part of the fact. For a particular packet, check the local brand website and the legal entity named on the packaging.
Does shared ownership mean shared ethics?
Shared ownership identifies the group whose governance and policies deserve scrutiny. It does not establish that every cocoa supplier, factory or product has the same record.
A chocolate sourcing question needs evidence about the relevant cocoa programme and its coverage. A complaint about a factory needs the employer, location, date and outcome. An ownership table alone cannot establish either. Conversely, a sustainability claim on one brand’s packaging does not settle the conduct of every sister company.
Before choosing an alternative
Write down the reason for the switch. If it is parent-company exposure, check the alternative’s parent. If it is cocoa sourcing, compare the actual certification or traceability statement on the products. If it is affordability or an allergy, ownership may not be the decisive issue.
The Nestlé and Mars guides help map other large groups. They should be used to investigate alternatives, not to assume that a different owner is automatically better.
Check the parent company’s record
Read Mondelēz’s Mashinii score for the parent company’s evidence and value-by-value assessment. This is a company score, not a separate rating for each brand or product listed above.
Sources checked on 24 September 2026. Ownership and policies can change after this review.
Look beyond the label.
Get one useful company story each week: ownership explainers, comparisons and new findings, with the sources. The Evidence Brief is free.